When he doesn't like what I write, Pete Borden likes to call me a liar. He has again leveled a charge that I lied in my recent column on the need to make gun safety part of the public safety discussion.

Here's his incendiary statement (emphasis added):

"Foley makes the erroneous statement that you can walk into almost any gun show and buy 'assault weapons', high capacity magazines and ammunition, no questions asked. I will not dignify that by calling it an untruth. I will call it what it is. It is a bald faced lie. Dealers at gun shows are bound by the same regulations requiring background checks, as they are when they are in their places of business. Since Foley is only parroting something he has heard, I have no way of knowing whether he is aware of that or not. But, I repeat, the statement is a lie."

Again, Mr. Borden, unlike you, I am far too good a writer and commentator not to do my research before speaking out on an issue.

From the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence web site, here's the breakdown on the so-called "gun show loophole":

Though commonly referred to as the “Gun Show Loophole,” the “private sales” described above include guns sold at gun shows, through classified newspaper ads, the Internet, and between individuals virtually anywhere.

Unfortunately, only six states (CA, CO, IL, NY, OR, RI) require universal background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows. Three more states (CT, MD, PA) require background checks on all handgun sales made at gun shows. Seven other states (HI, IA, MA, MI, NJ, NC, NE) require purchasers to obtain a permit and undergo a background check before buying a handgun. Florida allows its counties to regulate gun shows by requiring background checks on all firearms purchases at these events. 33 states have taken no action whatsoever to close the Gun Show Loophole.

Mr. Borden again shoots himself in the foot playing ready, fire, aim. Nice try, Peter. I'm waiting for my apology.

I wonder if the Second Amendment crowd has ever considered what armed insurrection against the "tyrannical" government they imagine actually looks like?

Let's, for fun and enlightenment, extrapolate. It's 2025 and the new president, Newt Palin, decides citizens have too much freedom. Together with his allies in Congress, he passes the New Patriot Act, a cleverly named piece of legislation that strips away most civil rights. President Palin justifies this law by telling Americans they are "in danger."

A band of patriots in Cobb County rises up, organizing themselves into a militia. Their plan is to revolt and attack federal buildings and installations.

But President Palin is also the commander in chief of the armed forces, so he has the most powerful military machine in the world to back him up. And because he is a conservative, he also has the support of the senior generals in the Pentagon.

Word of the Cobb County patriots reaches the president, who orders the military to go on high alert. Armed with their ArmaLites and Glocks and led by Charles Gregory, the Cobb County patriots climb into a Ford 150 pick up truck and head toward the Russell Federal Building in Atlanta.

A Predator drone has been orbiting Cobb County and a turncoat patriot has provided intel on the plan to attack the Russell Federal Building. The Predator zooms in on the pick up truck full of patriots speeding down Atlanta Road and releases a Hellfire missile, immolating everyone on board before they can fire a shot.

The moral of the story, folks, is that it is no longer 1776. Your semi-auto and auto weapons are no match for the mighty military you support. Your notion of citizens standing up to a government you believe is tyrannical is as quaint as it is absurd.

Luckily, we have a division of powers in America. One branch of government keeps the other in check. The military is controlled by the civilian government. We're also a nation of laws, so the need for an armed insurrection is highly remote.

So before considering a revolt, you Cobb County patriots should stop and ask yourself if your real problem isn't with our representative form of government that lawfully passes legislation the majority of Americans wish to see enacted.

Why do gun nuts always call themselves patriots? Here are comments posted under Pete Borden's nearby post by "Patriot D," who no doubt wears a tri-corn hat over his or her tin foil hat when he or she attends Tea Party shindigs. I've added some commentary for the enlightenment of the reader:

"It is not surprising though for me to see so many comfortable "Americans" (if you disagree with Patriot D, you aren't a real "American") so willing to surrender their power of freedom, liberty and subjugate themselves... all in the name of safety (let's see, government-ensured safe cars, safe food, safe medicines, safe airliners, safe highways...). Those reading this need to be able to identify the real threats to America (you mean like people who think assault weapons with high capacity magazines should be banned?) and refuse to allow your life to be micro-governed so everyone's entire life is perfectly safe. Imagine what that set of laws would be. Where will it end? What would life be like? (I don't know...maybe you should ask the parents of the kids slaughtered in Newtown, Patriot D). Life is about responsibility and accountability (Then why don't you identify yourself and take responsibility for your words?).

Perhaps it is the strict gun laws that cost those poor children their lives. (Um, we don't have strict gun laws. That's the problem.)

What if the principal was armed? Instead of rushing the shooter unarmed or choosing to hide in closets, someone could have eliminated the threat immediately. But unfortunately, no. Being law abiding good citizens, they were unarmed and unprepared and are now victims for it. This horrible incident proves that good people obey the laws and bad people don't. Why tie the hands of good guys and put them at the disadvantage? (You sound just like the NRA's Wayne LaPierre. What a coincidence)

I for one want the good people to ALWAYS be well ARMED. Who wouldn't? They're the good guys! The laws we have clearly don't work on bad guys. (Then why did New York City, with strict gun safety laws, have a record-low number of homicides in 2012?) The issue is about individual BEHAVIOR and individual RESPONSIBILITY. These tragedies are not the fault of some inanimate object like a gun. The gun doesn't think, make decisions, or act. (Maybe you can explain why Adam Lanza's momma, one of those aforementioned "good guys," had assault weapons in her home along with a son she knew was deranged. She evidently had no trigger locks on the weapons or a gun safe to lock them in.)

The PEOPLE need to hold these criminals accountable and the punishments need to be severe enough to deter behavior. (I agree. Make sure they can't get their hands on military style assault rifles and high capacity magazines. Ban 'em!)

Remember folks... this country is about WE THE PEOPLE. Do not allow yourself to be ruled by a government. America wasn't found on the pretense of a ruling government, America was uniquely founded based on a ruling people. Stand up and BE STRONG. (Yep. Tea Partier).

In America since 1776, THE PEOPLE RULE... therefore the PEOPLE KEEP THE POWER! (Power to the people, right on!)

So we can add 26 more to America's gun violence body count, this time, 20 first graders and seven adults mowed down by another reclusive lunatic. And its becoming so frequent, we're all becoming inured to it.

I wonder how many Americans were annoyed Sunday night when NBC cut away from the 49ers-Patriots game to broadcast President Obama's remarks at the memorial service in Newtown, Connecticut?

Last Friday, it was the same footage we always see: grim faced first responders and panicked parents rushing to the scene; surviving school kids shivering in terror, and another police chief trying to make sense of the insane.

Those first graders thought they were safe in their Sandy Hook classroom, no doubt giddy over the approaching Christmas holiday; baking cookies with mom, wrapping presents with dad, sledding with their friends. Then the shooting started, their little bodies cut to pieces by high powered bullets shot from a semi automatic assault weapon with a 30-round magazine.

These are the images we need to see, not the sterile, "here-we-go-again" footage we're accustomed to and, yes, indifferent to.

Let's see those victims so we all know what bullets really do. Let's be as shocked and sickened as those first police officers on the scene were at the sight of those dead babies and the women who gave their lives trying to protect them.

Columbine. Virginia Tech. Tucson, Aurora. Now Newtown. Innocents slaughtered with weapons that should have never been in the hands of their maniac killers. Do the rest of us care enough now to enact sensible gun control laws? Is our outrage, at long last, enough to finally tip the scales?

@Cobb Guy: You can have your discussion using statistics if you wish. I have never liked statistics. Logic and reason tells me that no child should be dead by gunfire, because someone did not use enough caution in keeping these unnecessary weapons out of the hands of their very troubled son. Logic and reason tells me that if these unnecessary guns were extremely hard to get by the general public then 20 children and six adults would not be dead in CT, the latest of the mass murders where an semi auto assault rifle was the weapon of choice. Logic and reason tells me that Adam Lanza's mother made a terrible mistake by teaching her very troubled son, how to shoot. I will add Adam Lanza was not trusted by his own mother, yet she put a gun in his hands. Logic and reason tells me that if you wish to own a gun for self protection, you don't need a Glock or a Bush Master or a AR 15. Logic and reason tells me that there is something vitally missing in the male and or female makeup if they feel incomplete without an arsenal in their home. I would suggest therapy, lots of therapy.

Statistics are your way of telling the victims and the families of victims, that it's not as bad as it seems.

Several of my far right fans have been looking for ways to discredit me. They seem annoyed by my incisive, witty, well researched and written columns and blogs unmasking conservative hypocrisy.

They think they found some dirt by dredging up the "fake news" label that was applied to my company and others in my industry back in 2006. (Actually, TV Guide ran a story about VNRs 26 years ago with the cover of the magazine screaming "Fake News" and the public collectively yawned).

Anyway, what took place six years ago is actually fairly interesting and not a little ironic for my conservative friends who may have voted for George W. Bush in 2004. For anybody who cares, here's the story:

Video news releases (VNRs) are the electronic equivalent of printed press releases that the MDJ and other print, Internet and radio media routinely use. They are supplied to television news stations at no cost and typically cover a wide range of innocuous, non-controversial subjects.

For example if a beverage company introduces a new brand, we will provide TV stations with videotape of the beverage coming off the packing line.

Sometimes we offer wedding tips from a web site specializing in brides, or we might feature an interview with a star athlete talking about his latest commercial endorsement.

TV stations are under no obligation to air VNRs, but may choose to do so if they feel the information they contain is useful to their audiences. If they do air the content, they almost always edit and attribute it.

The so-called "fake news" controversy began in 2005 after the Bush administration distributed VNRs touting its various initiatives. The Bush VNRs broke all the industry and FCC rules, presenting controversial information without any contrasting views. They were also narrated and offered as a two-minute "package" that some TV stations unwittingly aired.

Free Press and the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), a left wing, anti-corporation, anti-PR activist group, learned about one of these VNRs and complained to the Federal Communications Commission. As reported by Fox News in 2005:

"Media watchdogs decrying 'fake news' segments that are actually packages produced and distributed by the Bush administration to promote government programs are demanding the Federal Communications Commission take a stand against the practice.

"They are joined by some members of Congress and other groups who have asked the FCC to investigate whether the government and broadcasters are violating regulations by producing and airing what they say are deceptive public relations tools funded with taxpayer dollars.

"'It's essentially propaganda, it's so-called news that is promoting White House policies and is provided by the government and is not being labeled as such," said Josh Silver, a spokesman for Free Press, a watchdog group that recently helped to collect 40,000 signatures on a petition calling on the FCC, Congress and the broadcasters to "stop fake news.'"

In 2006, the CMD uped the ante, releasing a "report" condemning the use of all VNRs by TV stations. Much of what the CMD presented was either flat out wrong or deliberately distorted, but that didn't stop two FCC commissioners from siding with the CMD and speaking out before hearing the other side of the story.

I helped form and then lead an industry group, which hired a Washington attorney specializing in FCC matters. He reviewed the CMD report and agreed it was one-sided and seriously flawed from a legal standpoint. He sent a letter to the FCC chairman that included this:

"CMD, nevertheless, cites so-called VNR 'abuses' that have nothing to do with controversial or political matters and do not involve the alleged payment of money or other consideration to the broadcaster, including:

the use of candy flavored lip gloss;

Holiday gift ideas;

the making of a Super Bowl advertisement;

a shortage of qualified automobile technicians;

an Internet game;

Super Bowl party tips;

Holiday travel tips;

Floral care tips; and, last but not least,

the versatility of pancakes.

"On their face, these instances of VNR usage do not violate Commission rules nor longstanding Commission precedent -- yet CMD has publicly accused the stations at issue (and, by implication, the entire VNR industry) of serious and improper conduct detrimental to the public interest."

As happens so often in such things, the entire "fake news" fiasco died a natural death. Sorry conservative readers, but there's nothing to see here. Move along.

Kevin Foley Fake news man, you are so proud of your biased, slanted "news" stories paid for by your corporate and government clients who are featured in them, why not share them with the world? I hereby challenge you to make them all public by posting them online for all to see as they are produced and distributed, as we did with the VNRs we captured. Then, since you monitor for your clients exactly where this fake news aired, you shuold also post online information about which stations aired them, when and where. This is the age of the internet Kevin, and this sort of transparency would be wonderful! All the great information in your VNRs would reach an even wider audience. Let me know if you need any technical help in doing this. However, I know that you won't take up this challenge because you would be doing just what we've done, exposing how much of TV news is really just the disguised and plagiarized airings of PR videos.

Dr. Mel Fein has said in previous columns he is Jewish. So I wonder if Fein knows how Jews were persecuted through the ages; how they were dehumanized and murdered by Nazis simply for being Jewish?

And if Fein is aware of Jewish persecution, has he learned anything from it?

"I suggested that Barack Obama felt sympathetic toward Islam and its adherents," said Dr Fein in his recent column in which he described a debate he participated in at Kennesaw State. "At this, half the audience grew restive. What these people thought they heard me say was that Barack Obama is a Muslim. Now angered by my ignorance and insensitivity, they perceived me as a 'birther' who hadn’t the sense to recognize that our president is a Christian."

No, Dr. Fein, I think they heard exactly what you said and they perceived you as an intolerant bigot.

"Barack Obama is indeed a Christian, but that does not preclude his being kindly disposed to Muslims," Fein goes on. And why wouldn't Obama be kindly disposed to Muslims, along with Christians, Jews, and Buddhists?

"... it was no accident that once in office, he used the bully pulpit to extol the virtues of Islam," writes Fein. "In Cairo, in Indonesia, and at the United Nations — where each time he insisted it was a religion of peace. All of this was presumably intended to lessen international tensions, but it was likewise in harmony with his sentiments."

Then maybe Dr. Fein can explain why President George W. Bush repeatedly made the same sort of pro-Islam statements following the 9-11 attack. "America treasures the relationship we have with our many Muslim friends, and we respect the vibrant faith of Islam which inspires countless individuals to lead lives of honesty, integrity, and morality," Bush said in 2002.

Fein goes on to suggest Obama's "loyalties" might not lie with America should hostilities break out. It's a preposterous, intellectually dishonest statement as evidenced by Obama's take down of terrorist leaders throughout the Middle East, including Osama bin Laden, and his aggressive prosecution of the war on Muslim terrorists in Afghanistan. Meantime, the Obama administration's intervention in the recent outbreak of violence between Israelis and Palestinians was hailed by Israel's leaders.

Yet, Fein's broad brush paints all of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims, including the 2.6 million who live peacefully in the U.S., as terrorists or terrorist sympathizers, unworthy of our respect or sympathy, never mind that just an infinitesimal fraction of all Muslims are militants whose terrorism has been denounced and disavowed by Muslim leaders around the world

His generalization is, frighteningly, not unlike Nazi propaganda of the 1930s, which stereotyped Jews as rats that should be reviled and exterminated.

From Fein's anti-Islam position, history tells us, it's just a short leap to Nazi-style persecution:

"In September 1935 the Nuremberg Laws were passed," explains the Yan Veshem web site, "stripping the Jews of their citizenship and forbidding intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews. Jews were banned from universities; Jewish actors were dismissed from theaters; Jewish authors’ works were rejected by publishers; and Jewish journalists were hard-pressed to find newspapers that would publish their writings."

Very shortly after Jews were stripped of their rights, they were being sent to gas chambers by the millions. Dr. Fein should engage his brain before he sits down before his keyboard.

Oh Kevin, my stars, your fan club consists of you, and your other identity here, "Lib in Cobb". The rest of us just laugh at you. But it is trure that I am stating to forget to even read the garbage that the paper allows you to post.

Like so many Americans, I have great admiration for Sen. John McCain, an authentic American hero who came as close as any hero can to giving the "last full measure."

The sacrifice McCain and his comrades made in the notorious "Hanoi Hilton," where they suffered unspeakable physical and psychological torture, can never be fully repaid by America.

When he ran for president in 2008, while I didn't support him, I was certain he'd win. McCain's impeccable record in the U.S. Senate and his selfless service to the country added up to a sure fire victory, especially against a young, little known and seemingly unaccomplished Illinois senator.

Then McCain made a huge mistake.

As documented in the book "Game Change," he sought a means to distinguish his campaign from Obama's. I'm sure if he had chosen Governor Mitt Romney for vice president, Republicans would have secured the White House for at least eight years and perhaps as many as 16.

But McCain apparently didn't like the cut of Romney's jib, so he chose, instead, a young, little known, seemingly unaccomplished half-term governor from Alaska, a state with a population smaller than Kansas City's, as his running mate. The calculation: with Palin, McCain would lock in women, evangelical and Reagan Democrat voters.

Palin, of course, turned out to be a completely unqualified self-serving diva with no sense of loyalty to John McCain. A thorough vetting would have revealed Palin's predilections. But the campaign - and McCain, who must take responsibility for selecting Palin - didn't bother to check the pig in the poke they were buying.

And it was this oversight that disqualified McCain from the presidency. If McCain failed to perform the necessary due diligence on Palin, what did it that say about his judgement?

To his everlasting credit, McCain never threw Palin under the bus, although he would have been forgiven for doing so. Unfortunately, to McCain's discredit, he seems to have never forgiven Obama for defeating him in the 2008 general election.

Now it's payback time.

McCain is rushing to judgement on the Senate floor, all but accusing the president of a Watergate-type cover-up in the wake of the tragic attacks on the consulate in Benghazi, Libya. He thinks Obama "has a lot to answer for," even as he skipped closed-door Senate hearings on Benghazi so he could conduct media interviews to condemn the president.

As the country heads toward the fiscal cliff, John McCain, one of the leading Republicans in the Senate is prosecuting a personal vendetta against the man who defeated him. McCain appears bitter, angry and, frankly, unhinged in his pathetic, fact-free attempt to lay blame for the deaths of four Americans at the feet of Obama.

@DA: Two days since I asked to you post the transcript of President Obama's speech in which he used the term "I" over and over again as you have claimed. It appears that you can't post that transcript. Why? I read the transcript of the speech and what you claim in untrue. What a surprise? President Obama never claimed personal credit for the killing of OBL. More dog whistles DA, more dog whistles.

The latter two were swept into the House of Representatives by tea party fever in 2010 and both were swept out two short years later by tea party fatigue.

Tea partier Mourdock hoped to be the junior U.S, senator from Indiana before he committed political suicide by suggesting conception through rape was ordained by the Almighty. It's quite possible Indiana women, regardless of party, were offended by his declaration

For his part, Mitt Romney may have committed political suicide in refusing to withdraw his endorsement of Mourdock.

West, who accomplished exactly nothing during his brief term, alienated and angered his Florida constituents when he called fellow Florida representative, the respected Democrat Debbie Wasserman-Shultz, "vile" and "despicable" while channeling Joe McCarthy and telling voters he knew of 80 Communists in the House Progressive Caucus.

When asked to name them, West couldn't.

Walsh, who failed to make child support payments after being elected as a candidate who advocated "personal responsibility," did little more as a congressman then tell his supporters he was "pissed off" at Obama before he was finally ousted Tuesday night by Iraq War hero Lt. Col. Tammy Duckworth.

So what's the common denominator for the three stooges?

Irrational anger, mindless extremism, and raging intolerance. That may be cathartic for a few, but it's not governing the many.

But it's more difficult to tell the truth, especially when you present progressive arguments in a conservative stronghold like Cobb County. When I write my columns and blogs, I know they'll be scrutinized and any error will be vigorously waved in recrimination. So I'm especially careful to get my facts straight but some scrutinizers find fault anyway.

One of them is Mr. Pete Borden who believes he "called me out" and I should now just slink away, intimidated by his soaring intellect and acid pen. To Mr. Borden, standing up to his baseless attack is "juvenile." This is the motis operandi of so many conservatives in the face of undeniable facts.

Scream "liar" and then, "I'm done talking about this."

So, Pete, thanks for the last word.

You claim I have made "untrue attacks" on Romney when, in fact, I merely presented his ever-changing positions on a score of important issues. I repeated his own words and I quoted his co-religionists and his critics. Virtually everything I wrote is verifiable.

You of course failed to back up your charge in the first blog post and then, after I called you out, came back with two bogus "examples" that "prove" your point. But anyone who has carefully listened to Paul Ryan's views on contraception knows he wants it outlawed. Likewise, anyone who has paid attention to Romney knows he'll make access to contraception harder and more costly for women if he can.

Ironically, contraception wasn't even a political issue until the far right social engineers like Paul Ryan seized control of the

Republican party and made it one.

I began voting in 1972 and I have never seen a presidential candidate as craven and as dishonest as Mitt Romney. As I noted recently, he's just an empty Armani suit reciting any line he thinks will get him elected, true or not. This is how he behaved in business and as governor of Massachusetts.

Pete Borden has made a serious accusation in a nearby blog. He suggests I have lied in three of my columns published by the MDJ in recent weeks. However, Mr. Borden fails to back up his accusation with any specific examples.

The three columns in question all present Mitt Romney as what he is, a shape shifting prevaricator who lacks the conviction and guts to take a stand on any important public issue (more on that Friday). I back up my commentary with Romney's own statements and/or actions, something Mr. Borden doesn't like.

I was a journalist long before I entered public relations. I am also an author of historical fiction. I know how important research is, so I spend an inordinate amount of time on my MDJ columns making sure everything I write is supported by the truth.

For Mr. Borden to irresponsibly suggest I "made stuff up" is highly insulting and he's dead wrong. He might not like the facts, but they are what they are, Mr. Borden, whether you agree with them or not, whether you respect me or not.

So I challenge you here, Mr. Borden, to be very specific and present to MDJ readers ANY lie in any of the three columns I wrote or do the decent thing and publicly withdraw your accusation.

"Give 'em Hell" Harry Truman once famously said, "I never gave anyone hell. I just told them the truth and they thought it was hell."

*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, and spam will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides